That final stage, if you remember, involves giving every Windows user a ballot screen that gives them an option of which web browser to download. And right now, Microsoft's locked in negotiations with European regulators over what that ballot screen will actually look like.

The first option the company put forward - to list browsers by market share - was rejected by the EU because it simply reinforces the problem it's meant to fix. If Internet Explorer has been unfairly pushed into its market-leading position, as they say, then putting it first in the list will only serve to reinforce that position.

With that rejected, the latest option is a screen that lists the different options in alphabetical order by company name: Apple, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera. Good enough?

Maybe for some, but not for everyone. In a personal post on her blog, Firefox designer Jennifer Boriss says why she doesn't think that's a good idea: essentially because it gives unfair weight to Apple (as first on the list) and well, Safari's not very good ("it's just not their [Apple's] priority") or popular ("past consumer choice has shown that Safari does not provide an ideal browsing experience on Windows").

Instead, she suggests a few options, including one - "Order of market share, excluding Internet Explorer" - that would give Firefox the privilege of first place.

If all this seems a little like unfair griping with an agenda, then I can certainly see where you're coming from. There's a certain logic in thinking along these lines - after all, the assumption that the non-Explorer market is free of bias might feel logical - but the idea that Firefox should come first because it's the second-biggest browser is a remarkable piece of doublethink.

First, it's impossible to know what the market would look like if Internet Explorer didn't exist. Secondly, you can't completely ignore how long browsers have existed in the market: Internet Explorer's 14 years old, while Firefox is five years old. By contrast, Safari has been around for two years, Chrome for one. Only Opera bucks the trend.

And then there's the philosophical argument: perhaps anybody who is fundamentally opposed to what Internet Explorer stands for - closed source, big corporate software - would be more likely to go with the non-corporate, open source rival. Does ticking certain political or philosophical boxes mean it's a better product?

Indeed, for me, it's been a while since Firefox was the clear leader in the market: IE8 is a very good piece of software, Chrome has a lot of great points, and Opera is good for those who enjoy its array of features. Safari? I haven't used it enough on PC to know.

This train of thought inevitably leads to the question of which piece of software best - and who is to judge that?

I'm not sure, but I can tell you two groups I wouldn't want to decide which product was better than the rest: a gang of government regulators or a group of competitors.

So what are the other options?

You could have alphabetical by product name, rather than company of course (which would deliver Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera) but then you would potentially end up with the Yellow Pages disease, where products are named things like "AAA+++ SUPER BROWSER!!!!" just to ensure they get near the front of the queue.

Boriss suggests another market share-based ballot screen (weighted by market share). That's not much better than simply organising by market share in the first place.

She does suggest another option that seems sensible: randomised offerings.

Why not? It would even out the bias towards picking the first candidate. It would be an interesting scientific study, and it would certainly boost the market share for lower order browsers like Opera, Chrome and Safari.

In this case, assuming for now that a user will click the first option, each browser would end up with one in five installations. That would hurt Microsoft massively, but it wouldn't increase Firefox's market share a jot.

And there's the rub, for Boriss at least. Underneath her carefully worded post, the basic thrust seems to be that correcting Microsoft's bad behaviour should involve giving Firefox a leg up. I'm not surprised she thinks that the product she works on is the best in the market, but that doesn't mean she's right.

And, crucially, helping Mozilla, Google, Apple or Opera is not actually what this is about. It's a subtle distinction, but the EU is attempting to correct Microsoft's undue influence on people's decisions. And to achieve that, it's probably better to remove that influence altogether than replace one set of assumptions with another.